Browse Now . . .

Sex

Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by
his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man,
sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of
existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to
acquire its momentary illusion.

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to
the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own
highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and
body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of
experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.

Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is
platonic love—and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool’s
self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one’s code of values . . . . Only the man
who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity
of a desire devoid of love.

The man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual
adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect
and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value . . .

The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no
intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that
sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice
or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a
choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself
into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is
impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a
man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions.
Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire
philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his
valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of
selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he
cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of
performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in
self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being
desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked
in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of
value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision
of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a
sense of self-esteem . . . . Love is our response to our highest values—and can
be nothing else.

The doctrine that man’s sexual capacity belongs to a lower or animal part of
his nature . . . is the necessary consequence of the doctrine that man is not
an integrated entity, but a being torn apart by two opposite, antagonistic,
irreconcilable elements: his body, which is of this earth, and his soul, which
is of another, supernatural realm. According to that doctrine, man’s sexual
capacity—regardless of how it is exercised or motivated, not merely its
abuses, not unfastidious indulgence or promiscuity, but the capacity as
such—is sinful or depraved.

Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must
never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only
on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not
be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider
promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and
too important . . . .

[Sex should] involve . . . a very serious relationship. Whether that
relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends
on the circumstances and the context of the two persons’ lives. I consider
marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two
people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their
lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When
one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a
desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less
than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a
marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved
and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties
take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.